You might have seen a news story or two published on a pet food study just released by the FDA finding raw pet foods to have a high incident level of dangerous bacteria. But wait one minute, there are some big holes in the peer reviewed paper (at tax payer expense). Was this study outcome based?
Outcome based research is a term used for science performed with the intent for results to prove a particular outcome. The research is ‘set up’ to reach the wanted outcome. It is biased science.
Just about everywhere in the news of late has been mention of recent FDA science confirming risks to dangerous bacteria linked to raw pet foods. The ‘science’ appears to tell consumers raw pet food carries a much higher risk to bacteria such as Listeria, Salmonella, and E coli than kibble foods. But wait one minute there FDA…the paper “Investigation of Listeria, Salmonella, and Toxigenic Escherichia coli in Various Pet Foods” has some pretty big holes in their science.
The outcome of this two year tax dollar paid for study found that in 480 kibble and semi-moist cat and dog food samples tested, only one was found to contain Salmonella.
But with raw food, the study tested 196 products and found 15 to contain Salmonella bacteria, 32 tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes, 33 raw pet foods tested positive for other Listeria species, and 8 more samples tested positive for Shinga toxin-producing strains of E coli.
Sounds ominous doesn’t it? But…
The FDA funded science states the research was a “blinded study”. A blind study means the scientists testing the foods were not made aware of what brands of foods they were testing.
The kibble and semi-moist pet foods tested were “purchased from local stores”…“packaged in bags for retail sale”.
With the raw foods, “Laboratories received” samples “usually frozen” and were “comprised ground meat- or sausage-type tubes”.
Several serious concerns…
- It does not appear, per the wording of the published paper of this study that the kibble foods were actually blinded to the scientists. If one segment of the study was performed blind, and another was performed open – the two Phases of the study cannot be compared.
- It does appear that the raw foods were shipped to each lab blind. However, the study does not clarify how the raw pet foods were segmented and sent as blind samples to each lab.a. If raw foods were frozen tubes of ground meat – was the food thawed to be segmented into samples and then refrozen?
b. If the raw foods were segmented into samples and remained frozen (cut with a saw into samples), was each of the 196 samples thawed per each manufacturer instructions (refrigerated to thaw)?
c. Were the raw foods thawed at room temperature? If so, how long were foods left at room temperature before testing?
Certainly a scientific study emphasizing the consumer risk to raw meat pet foods, would have clarified their (scientists) proper handling methods of the raw foods…but in this research there is no mention of how the raw foods were handled. There is no mention if the raw foods were thawed in shipping, there is no mention if the foods were allowed to sit at room temperature for a day or more (allowing bacteria to grow) before testing.
Every quote made in this tax payer funded research regarding the risk to consumers of Salmonella or other bacteria were all linked to outbreaks from kibble pet foods. They have not one quoted instance of a link from a raw pet food to human illness. Not one. But the paper does mention a study of raw meat fed to zoo animals with incidents of Salmonella. Why would a zoo animal raw meat study be cited in a paper to address the concerns of pet food? Consumers don’t purchase zoo animal raw meats to feed their cats and dogs.
I have numerous questions into the FDA and to the contact person for this study. When I receive responses, they will be shared. In the meantime, don’t believe everything you read about this study. So far, when you look at it closely it certain appears to be outcome based science.
The paper tells us what – perhaps – was their intended outcome…“Our study supports the conclusion that Salmonella prevalence in dry feeds has decreased, since we found only one Salmonella positive out of 480 dry and semimoist cat and dog food samples tested.”
Again, when responses to questions are received, they will be posted.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 2500 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
2014 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking for pets made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
catherine
September 12, 2014 at 11:09 am
everything done by Washington and politicians today is outcome based. both parties in congress choose power and money and votes over fiscal and personal responsibility and we choose congress. hmmm….think about it.
Jennifer Pottruff DNM, DO
September 12, 2014 at 11:41 am
Of course they want to make kibble sound good. No money to be made in raw food. And much to lose dollar wise if people stop feeding kibble.
I lost a dog to the dog food in 2008. I now only feed raw. The difference in my animals now to when they did eat kibble and when my last animals are kibble is huge. I will never go back, ever!!!!
Jennifer Pottruff DNM, DO, VND(cand)
Ellie
September 12, 2014 at 11:55 am
It is rare when we see a recall of a raw pet food product. Most recalls are traditional pet foods.
The war that veterinarians wage against raw pet food is obvious but their special interest in the pet food companies that help support them is also obvious. The FDA is closely entrenched with the pet food industry and has allowed them to use some of the lowest quality throw away products to produce their “feed.” The pet food industry is one of the few industries that get rich using ingredients that would otherwise be garbage.
A less than honest study by the FDA? Very possible.
For the Pets
September 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm
Only one was found to contain salmonella? How could that be?
caroline bromm
September 12, 2014 at 4:52 pm
IT is so sad to see the FDA use their tactics against innocent pets –the whole bunch is very flawed –the way they do those “studies” is EXACTLY how they do their HUMAN illness studies and show exactly the same results as it fits their AGENDA –been there to protest personally but they are a sad bunch –one great dr. LEFT after their treatment of people trying to stop a bad treatment —its just amazing how they get by with the things they do but we have to be so careful of the results of MEDICAL PERSONS–STUDIES —AND THE THINGS THEY PUSH —its hard for people and pets —how did it get this bad and what can we do when they can screw the results of a test or studies and we are the TEST SUBJECTS —or our pets ARE TEST SUBJECTS and not treated with respect and the Truth —-its a con to fix a study or test to make the outcome what you want —-its got to be stopped and real people have to be in charge at the FDA —-REAL HONEST PEOPLE –GEES HOW HARD IS THAT TO DO —-DONT THOSE PEOPLE FEEL ANY GUILT ? THANKS FOR ALL YOU SHOW US AND DO FOR US AND OUR BEST FRIENDS THE ANIMALS —-
Bill (the Pet Health Guru)
September 12, 2014 at 7:53 pm
I only have 2 questions on this study result ….
1. If dry food was clean… explain all the FDA recalls over the past few years (even excluding 2007)
2. If raw had 88 contaminated ( could be only 33 if bad with all pathogens) why was there now recalls of these products???
Sounds very suspicious to me….
Jeri
September 12, 2014 at 10:16 pm
Well said and obvious to most who are paying attention. Interesting, especially considering the study done by Delta to attempt to prove the same thing….but oh, my! The results were not as intended: http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2010/08/05/nations-leading-dog-therapy-organization-shoots-self-in-foot-with-ban-on-raw-fed-pets.aspx
Now I know some will likely talk about unknown conditions of the study posted here blah blah blah, but the fact remains that the group is virulently ANTI-raw and yet this “study” apparently exists (a study which clearly proves the opposite of what they set out to prove). At the very least its existence should keep one incredulous about any study which claims the dangers of raw – especially when hosted/sponsored by a group with obvious cozy ties to the pet food industry (which is clearly getting desperate to hold onto the percentage of market they’re losing to raw). If anything, I’m inclined to believe the Delta group study over the FDA one for the simple reason that the results are not favorable to their position on raw– and the FDA study, well….. ’nuff said.
Judy Miller
September 12, 2014 at 9:40 pm
They don’t know what they are talking about….
Raw meat has bacteria in it, period! Big deal. If pet food was under the jurisdiction of the USDA instead of the FDA, nothing would be said unless a large number of pets were getting sick.
The USDA doesn’t even check for bacteria in a butcher shop because it is expected that raw meat has bacteria. That’s just the way it is. Dogs and cats can handle these bacteria. Humans must cook the meat to kill them. A healthy cat or dog does not get sick from it. I don’t get sick either, and have never taken any special precautions when I handle raw meat. You build up a resistance and become immune.
The animals who get sick, are probably not all that healthy to begin with. (did the article say if any of the animals got sick? I only understood that the bacteria count was “high” and nothing about any animal getting sick.) A few that get sick will ruin it for everybody and they will outlaw raw meat diets for pets.
Jane Eagle
September 13, 2014 at 12:55 am
“The research is ‘set up’ to reach the wanted outcome. It is biased science.” That is NOT science at all: it is advertising. The old saying applies here: figures don’t lie, but liars figure…
Peter
September 13, 2014 at 3:05 am
In order for a study to be “scientific,” it has to be replicable. That means, all of the study parameters and procedures must be explicitly clarified, so that another researcher can take the study and exactly replicate it, to test the veracity of the results and the conclusions the authors reach. Being able to specifically replicate a study is important also, so that other researchers can test how changing elements of the study affect the results.
So if, as you say, the methods for thawing (if any) are not clearly explained, then, the research is not “scientific.”
lildeb
September 13, 2014 at 9:12 pm
Can raw meat cause worms in cats?
I heard that Borax acid and salt would kills fleas in the carpet n not harmful to pets. Anyone else heard of such a thing? All my pets r on once a month flea treatment but two of r dogs go in n outside.
Aurora
September 14, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Worms – depends largely on your meat sources. Most domestic meat animals are wormed and so very low risk. If you feed wild caught meats then yes there is slight risk. Freezing the meat at below 0’f for 10 days will kill most parasites found in meat and fish.
Borax is a well known insecticide however you dont want to put that on your rugs, furnitures or floors as it can become airborne when vacuuming or walking on the area and you and your pets will get it in your lungs.
Fleabusters.com sells a specially formulated borax that is statically charged so it stays in the carpet when applied according to their directions. They will also apply it for you along with a 1 year guarantee.
I use rock salt in saucers under the furniture where my pets don’t have access to it. Fleas are said to be attracted to salt, and become dehydrated. I don’t know how true that may be… we haven’t had fleas in decades though. and we live in the country with 2 dogs, 4 cats. I also raw feed and that is part of the holistic plan – you can’t just do one part of the puzzle and expect it to work well, you do ALL the pieces of the puzzle and it works very well!
lildeb
September 15, 2014 at 9:04 am
Thank you for responding to my questions and I am so glad that I asked first. I like the idea of the rock salt. Thanks